Zevachim 66
Share this shiur:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Want to dedicate learning? Get started here:
Today’s daily daf tools:
Masechet Zevachim
Masechet Zevachim is sponsored by Esther Kremer in loving memory of her father, Manny Gross on his third yahrzeit. “He exemplified a path of holiness and purity, living with kedushah in his everyday life.”
This week’s learning is sponsored for the merit and safety of Haymanut (Emuna) Kasau, who was 9 years old when she disappeared from her home in Tzfat two years ago, on the 16th of Adar, 5784 (February 25, 2024), and whose whereabouts remain unknown.
This week’s learning is dedicated of the safety of our nation, the soldiers and citizens of Israel, and for the liberation of the Iranian people. May we soon see the realization of “ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר”.
Zevachim 66
אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַבְדִּיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי בוֹר דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין צָרִיךְ לְכַסּוֹת?!
It means that the priest does not have to separate it, but not that it is prohibited to do so. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, then with regard to a pit in the public domain, where it is written: “And if a man shall open a pit…and does not cover it” (Exodus 21:33), can one claim that this verse also means that he does not have to cover it?
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם״ – עִלָּוֵיהּ הוּא דִּרְמֵי לְכַסּוֹיֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ – חָלַק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף;
The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to a pit, since it is written in the following verse: “The owner of the pit shall pay” (Exodus 21:34), it is evident that it is incumbent upon him to cover the pit. But here, since it is written with regard to a bird burnt offering: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 1:15), the term “it” indicates that the verse is referring only to a burnt offering, and the verse has thereby differentiated between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering.
״לֹא יַבְדִּיל״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַבְדִּיל.
Consequently, it is obvious that whereas the priest must completely separate the head of a bird burnt offering, this is not the halakha with regard to a sin offering. Why do I need the verse to state with regard to a bird sin offering: “But shall not separate it” (Leviticus 5:8)? Conclude from this verse that it is not forbidden to separate the head of a bird sin offering from the body, but rather one does not have to separate it.
מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עוֹלָה״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ. יָכוֹל מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הוּא״.
§ The mishna teaches that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified. If he squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, the offering is valid. The Sages taught in a baraita: In reference to a bird burnt offering, the verse states, seemingly unnecessarily: “It is a burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:17). This teaches that even though the priest squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, it is valid. One might have thought that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body the offering is still valid. Therefore, the verse states: “It is.”
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבִינָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּרוֹב דָּמִים בַּגּוּף שְׁכִיחִי.
The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for the opinion that the offering is valid if the priest squeezed out only the blood of the body but not if he squeezed out only the blood of the head? Ravina said: There is no conclusive proof from the language of the verse itself, but it stands to reason that this is the case, as most of the blood is found in the body, not the head.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים
מַתְנִי’ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת, לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת — כְּשֵׁירָה.
MISHNA: If the priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in its designated place below the red line, and he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering with pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape with a fingernail, and sprinkling, and he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a sin offering ab initio.
כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה.
If the priest sacrificed the bird sin offering below the red line in the middle of the altar and according to the procedure of a sin offering, but he sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering, even if he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering; in all these cases the sin offering is disqualified. If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה; כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – כְּשֵׁירָה. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – כְּשֵׁירָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ.
A bird burnt offering that one sacrificed in its designated place above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for the sake of a burnt offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a burnt offering ab initio. If he sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line according to the procedure of the burnt offering but for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit, but it did not satisfy the obligation of its owner.
כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה; כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה.
If the priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering, or according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is disqualified. If he sacrificed it below the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.
גְּמָ׳ דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף?
GEMARA: According to the mishna, a bird sin offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a burnt offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching by severing the head completely, as is proper for a burnt offering, shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: I heard that the priests would sever the head completely even in the sacrifice of a bird sin offering?
וְלָא אוֹקֵימְנָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?!
The Gemara responds: And what is wrong with this conclusion? Have we not already explained that the mishna in the previous chapter (65a), with regard to pinching, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?
לָא; דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה.
The Gemara offers another explanation: No, the mishna is referring to a case where the priest changed the procedure in the rite of sprinkling by squeezing out all the blood at once, as one would do with a burnt offering, rather than first sprinkling the blood on the altar as is proper for a sin offering. Under such circumstances, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would also agree that the offering is disqualified.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא – מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה, הָאָמַר מָר: מְלִיקָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה? וּמִדְּסֵיפָא בְּהַזָּאָה, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בְּהַזָּאָה.
This, too, stands to reason that the mishna is referring to a change in the sprinkling. This can be inferred from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, and this applies even if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. With regard to what rite did the priest change the location of the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching, performing it above the red line, didn’t the Master already say with regard to a bird sin offering that pinching is valid anywhere on the altar? Rather, is it not that he changed the location of the sprinkling? And since the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to sprinkling, by inference, the ruling of the first clause is also stated with regard to sprinkling.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא!
The Gemara responds to this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Even if the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a change in the location of the sprinkling, the ruling of the first clause may still be stated with regard to a change in the procedure of the pinching, in which case the mishna would not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף כּוּ׳. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?
§ According to the mishna, a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a sin offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure?
אִילֵּימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הָאָמַר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין!
If we say that he changed the pinching of the bird’s nape by leaving the head partially attached, as is proper for a sin offering, then from the fact that the latter clause, i.e., the first clause of the next mishna (66b), teaches: All of the offerings enumerated above do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when it is in the throat, and one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, by inference, we must say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, doesn’t he say later on in that mishna concerning a burnt offering whose nape was pinched according to the procedure of a sin offering: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property?
וְאֶלָּא בְּמִיצּוּי?
Rather, the mishna must be referring to a change in the procedure of squeezing out the blood. Instead of squeezing out the blood, the priest sprinkled it on the wall of the altar as if it were a sin offering. In this case, even Rabbi Yehoshua would concede that one is liable for misusing it.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?
But say the last clause of the subsequent mishna: In the case of a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of a sin offering, and for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as the bird assumes the status of a sin offering. Here, with regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure and perform it as if it were a sin offering?
אִילֵּימָא בְּמִיצּוּי, אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; בְּמִיצּוּי מִי אָמַר?!
If we say that he changed the squeezing, this poses a difficulty, as it is reasonable to say that Rabbi Yehoshua says that one is not liable for misuse specifically when the priest changed the pinching, as pinching a burnt offering for a bird as though it were a sin offering changes its status; but does he say this in a case where it was pinched properly, and the priest changed the squeezing procedure alone? It is unreasonable to suggest that the offering changes its status at this later stage.
וְאֶלָּא בִּמְלִיקָה? רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי?!
Rather, this final clause must be referring to a change with regard to the pinching. But can it be that the first clause concerning a sin offering sacrificed as a burnt offering and the last clause concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are both referring to a change with regard to the pinching, but the middle clause concerning a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing?
אִין; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי.
The Gemara answers: Indeed, the first clause and the last clause are referring to a change with regard to the pinching, and the middle clause is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing.
מַתְנִי׳ וְכוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן; חוּץ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.
MISHNA: And all of the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. But nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of them is liable for misusing consecrated property. This is the halakha in all cases except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ.
In the case of a bird burnt offering that one improperly sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering, and one did so for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering, whose meat is never permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property. Since the entire sacrificial process was conducted according to the procedure of a sin offering, the offering assumes the status of a sin offering in this regard.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּמָה אִם חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ; עוֹלָה, שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָּהּ?!
The mishna recounts the dispute between the tanna’im. Rabbi Eliezer said: And if in the case of a sin offering that was sacrificed for its sake, one is not liable for misusing it, and nevertheless, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake, one is liable for misusing it, then in the case of a burnt offering, where one is liable for misusing it even when it was sacrificed for its sake, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake is it not right that he is liable for misusing it?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה; תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה?!
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that a fortiori inference is not correct, as if you said with regard to a sin offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering that there is liability for misuse, this is reasonable, because he changed its designation to an item for which there is liability for misuse. Would you say in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering that there is liability for misuse, as in that case he changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for its misuse?
Today’s daily daf tools:
Delve Deeper
Broaden your understanding of the topics on this daf with classes and podcasts from top women Talmud scholars.
Zevahim 66: Procedure, Intent, and Consecration – for Bird Offerings
Spiritual Aspects of Korbanot: The Permission To Eat Meat
New to Talmud?
Check out our resources designed to help you navigate a page of Talmud – and study at the pace, level and style that fits you.
The Hadran Women’s Tapestry
Meet the diverse women learning Gemara at Hadran and hear their stories.
I LOVE learning the Daf. I started with Shabbat. I join the morning Zoom with Reb Michelle and it totally grounds my day. When Corona hit us in Israel, I decided that I would use the Daf to keep myself sane, especially during the days when we could not venture out more than 300 m from our home. Now my husband and I have so much new material to talk about! It really is the best part of my day!
Hashmonaim, Israel
It happened without intent (so am I yotzei?!) – I watched the women’s siyum live and was so moved by it that the next morning, I tuned in to Rabbanit Michelle’s shiur, and here I am, still learning every day, over 2 years later. Some days it all goes over my head, but others I grasp onto an idea or a story, and I ‘get it’ and that’s the best feeling in the world. So proud to be a Hadran learner.
Zichron Yaakov, Israel
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Los Angeles, United States
A few years back, after reading Ilana Kurshan’s book, “If All The Seas Were Ink,” I began pondering the crazy, outlandish idea of beginning the Daf Yomi cycle. Beginning in December, 2019, a month before the previous cycle ended, I “auditioned” 30 different podcasts in 30 days, and ultimately chose to take the plunge with Hadran and Rabbanit Michelle. Such joy!
HUNTINGTON, United States
I began my Daf Yomi journey on January 5, 2020. I had never learned Talmud before. Initially it struck me as a bunch of inane and arcane details with mind bending logic. I am now smitten. Rabbanit Farber brings the page to life and I am eager to learn with her every day!
Highland Park, United States
Palo Alto, CA, United States
In January 2020, my teaching partner at IDC suggested we do daf yomi. Thanks to her challenge, I started learning daily from Rabbanit Michelle. It’s a joy to be part of the Hadran community. (It’s also a tikkun: in 7th grade, my best friend and I tied for first place in a citywide gemara exam, but we weren’t invited to the celebration because girls weren’t supposed to be learning gemara).
Jerusalem, Israel
Raanana, Israel
I started learning Gemara at the Yeshivah of Flatbush. And I resumed ‘ברוך ה decades later with Rabbanit Michele at Hadran. I started from Brachot and have had an exciting, rewarding experience throughout seder Moed!
Maale Adumim, Israel
I began daf yomi in January 2020 with Brachot. I had made aliya 6 months before, and one of my post-aliya goals was to complete a full cycle. As a life-long Tanach teacher, I wanted to swim from one side of the Yam shel Torah to the other. Daf yomi was also my sanity through COVID. It was the way to marking the progression of time, and feel that I could grow and accomplish while time stopped.
Givat Zev, Israel
What a great experience to learn with Rabbanit Michelle Farber. I began with this cycle in January 2020 and have been comforted by the consistency and energy of this process throughout the isolation period of Covid. Week by week, I feel like I am exploring a treasure chest with sparkling gems and puzzling antiquities. The hunt is exhilarating.
Pennsylvania, United States
New York, United States
I began my journey two years ago at the beginning of this cycle of the daf yomi. It has been an incredible, challenging experience and has given me a new perspective of Torah Sh’baal Peh and the role it plays in our lives
Efrat, Israel
I attended the Siyum so that I could tell my granddaughter that I had been there. Then I decided to listen on Spotify and after the siyum of Brachot, Covid and zoom began. It gave structure to my day. I learn with people from all over the world who are now my friends – yet most of us have never met. I can’t imagine life without it. Thank you Rabbanit Michelle.
Raanana, Israel
Since I started in January of 2020, Daf Yomi has changed my life. It connects me to Jews all over the world, especially learned women. It makes cooking, gardening, and folding laundry into acts of Torah study. Daf Yomi enables me to participate in a conversation with and about our heritage that has been going on for more than 2000 years.
Skokie, IL, United States
Shortly after the death of my father, David Malik z”l, I made the commitment to Daf Yomi. While riding to Ben Gurion airport in January, Siyum HaShas was playing on the radio; that was the nudge I needed to get started. The “everyday-ness” of the Daf has been a meaningful spiritual practice, especial after COVID began & I was temporarily unable to say Kaddish at daily in-person minyanim.
Wynnewood, United States
Margo
I started my Talmud journey in 7th grade at Akiba Jewish Day School in Chicago. I started my Daf Yomi journey after hearing Erica Brown speak at the Hadran Siyum about marking the passage of time through Daf Yomi.
Carolyn
I started my Talmud journey post-college in NY with a few classes. I started my Daf Yomi journey after the Hadran Siyum, which inspired both my son and myself.
Merion Station, USA
Beit Shemesh, Israel
I heard the new Daf Yomi cycle was starting and I was curious, so I searched online for a women’s class and was pleasently surprised to find Rabanit Michelle’s great class reviews in many online articles. It has been a splendid journey. It is a way to fill my days with Torah, learning so many amazing things I have never heard before during my Tanach learning at High School. Thanks so much .
Panama, Panama
I decided to learn one masechet, Brachot, but quickly fell in love and never stopped! It has been great, everyone is always asking how it’s going and chering me on, and my students are always making sure I did the day’s daf.
Memphis, Tennessee, United States
Zevachim 66
אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַבְדִּיל. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַב אַחָא בְּרֵיהּ דְּרָבָא לְרַב אָשֵׁי: אֶלָּא מֵעַתָּה, גַּבֵּי בוֹר דִּכְתִיב ״וְלֹא יְכַסֶּנּוּ״ – הָכִי נָמֵי דְּאֵין צָרִיךְ לְכַסּוֹת?!
It means that the priest does not have to separate it, but not that it is prohibited to do so. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: If that is so, then with regard to a pit in the public domain, where it is written: “And if a man shall open a pit…and does not cover it” (Exodus 21:33), can one claim that this verse also means that he does not have to cover it?
הָכִי הַשְׁתָּא?! הָתָם, כֵּיוָן דִּכְתִיב ״בַּעַל הַבּוֹר יְשַׁלֵּם״ – עִלָּוֵיהּ הוּא דִּרְמֵי לְכַסּוֹיֵי. אֲבָל הָכָא, מִכְּדֵי כְּתִיב ״וְהִקְרִיבוֹ״ – חָלַק הַכָּתוּב בֵּין חַטַּאת הָעוֹף לְעוֹלַת הָעוֹף;
The Gemara responds: How can these cases be compared? There, with regard to a pit, since it is written in the following verse: “The owner of the pit shall pay” (Exodus 21:34), it is evident that it is incumbent upon him to cover the pit. But here, since it is written with regard to a bird burnt offering: “And the priest shall bring it to the altar” (Leviticus 1:15), the term “it” indicates that the verse is referring only to a burnt offering, and the verse has thereby differentiated between a bird sin offering and a bird burnt offering.
״לֹא יַבְדִּיל״ לְמָה לִי? שְׁמַע מִינַּהּ: אֵין צָרִיךְ לְהַבְדִּיל.
Consequently, it is obvious that whereas the priest must completely separate the head of a bird burnt offering, this is not the halakha with regard to a sin offering. Why do I need the verse to state with regard to a bird sin offering: “But shall not separate it” (Leviticus 5:8)? Conclude from this verse that it is not forbidden to separate the head of a bird sin offering from the body, but rather one does not have to separate it.
מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף. תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: ״עוֹלָה״ – אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁמִּיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ. יָכוֹל מִיצָּה דַּם הָרֹאשׁ וְלֹא מִיצָּה דַּם הַגּוּף? תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר: ״הוּא״.
§ The mishna teaches that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body, it is disqualified. If he squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, the offering is valid. The Sages taught in a baraita: In reference to a bird burnt offering, the verse states, seemingly unnecessarily: “It is a burnt offering” (Leviticus 1:17). This teaches that even though the priest squeezed out the blood of the body and did not squeeze out the blood of the head, it is valid. One might have thought that if the priest squeezed out the blood of the head and did not squeeze out the blood of the body the offering is still valid. Therefore, the verse states: “It is.”
מַאי תַּלְמוּדָא? אָמַר רָבִינָא: מִסְתַּבְּרָא, דְּרוֹב דָּמִים בַּגּוּף שְׁכִיחִי.
The Gemara asks: What is the biblical derivation for the opinion that the offering is valid if the priest squeezed out only the blood of the body but not if he squeezed out only the blood of the head? Ravina said: There is no conclusive proof from the language of the verse itself, but it stands to reason that this is the case, as most of the blood is found in the body, not the head.
הֲדַרַן עֲלָךְ קׇדְשֵׁי קָדָשִׁים
מַתְנִי’ חַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת, לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת — כְּשֵׁירָה.
MISHNA: If the priest sacrificed a bird sin offering in its designated place below the red line, and he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering with pinching, i.e., cutting from the nape with a fingernail, and sprinkling, and he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a sin offering ab initio.
כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה.
If the priest sacrificed the bird sin offering below the red line in the middle of the altar and according to the procedure of a sin offering, but he sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering, even if he sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering; or if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a burnt offering for the sake of a burnt offering; in all these cases the sin offering is disqualified. If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה; כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – כְּשֵׁירָה. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה עוֹלָה לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – כְּשֵׁירָה, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁלֹּא עָלְתָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ.
A bird burnt offering that one sacrificed in its designated place above the red line according to the procedure of a burnt offering and for the sake of a burnt offering is fit. This is the manner in which a priest is to sacrifice a burnt offering ab initio. If he sacrificed a bird burnt offering above the red line according to the procedure of the burnt offering but for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is fit, but it did not satisfy the obligation of its owner.
כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה, כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – פְּסוּלָה. עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה; כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה.
If the priest sacrificed a bird burnt offering according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a burnt offering, or according to the procedure of a sin offering for the sake of a sin offering, the offering is disqualified. If he sacrificed it below the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, because he did not sacrifice it in its designated place.
גְּמָ׳ דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, דְּאָמַר: שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁמַּבְדִּילִין בְּחַטַּאת הָעוֹף?
GEMARA: According to the mishna, a bird sin offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a burnt offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching by severing the head completely, as is proper for a burnt offering, shall we say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, who says: I heard that the priests would sever the head completely even in the sacrifice of a bird sin offering?
וְלָא אוֹקֵימְנָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בְּרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן?!
The Gemara responds: And what is wrong with this conclusion? Have we not already explained that the mishna in the previous chapter (65a), with regard to pinching, is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon?
לָא; דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה.
The Gemara offers another explanation: No, the mishna is referring to a case where the priest changed the procedure in the rite of sprinkling by squeezing out all the blood at once, as one would do with a burnt offering, rather than first sprinkling the blood on the altar as is proper for a sin offering. Under such circumstances, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, would also agree that the offering is disqualified.
הָכִי נָמֵי מִסְתַּבְּרָא – מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: עֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַעְלָה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה כּוּלָּן – פְּסוּלָה, וַאֲפִילּוּ כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי? אִילֵימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה, הָאָמַר מָר: מְלִיקָה בְּכׇל מָקוֹם בַּמִּזְבֵּחַ – כְּשֵׁירָה! אֶלָּא לָאו דְּשַׁנִּי בְּהַזָּאָה? וּמִדְּסֵיפָא בְּהַזָּאָה, רֵישָׁא נָמֵי בְּהַזָּאָה.
This, too, stands to reason that the mishna is referring to a change in the sprinkling. This can be inferred from the fact that the mishna teaches in the latter clause: If one sacrificed a bird sin offering above the red line according to the procedure of any of the offerings, it is disqualified, and this applies even if he sacrificed it according to the procedure of a sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. With regard to what rite did the priest change the location of the procedure? If we say that he changed the pinching, performing it above the red line, didn’t the Master already say with regard to a bird sin offering that pinching is valid anywhere on the altar? Rather, is it not that he changed the location of the sprinkling? And since the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to sprinkling, by inference, the ruling of the first clause is also stated with regard to sprinkling.
מִידֵּי אִירְיָא?! הָא כִּדְאִיתָא, וְהָא כִּדְאִיתָא!
The Gemara responds to this proof: Are the cases comparable? This case is as it is, and that case is as it is. Even if the ruling of the latter clause is stated with regard to a change in the location of the sprinkling, the ruling of the first clause may still be stated with regard to a change in the procedure of the pinching, in which case the mishna would not be in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon.
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף כּוּ׳. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?
§ According to the mishna, a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed according to the procedure of a sin offering is disqualified. The Gemara asks: With regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure?
אִילֵּימָא דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; מִדְּקָתָנֵי סֵיפָא: כּוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִין בָּהֶן – נֵימָא דְּלָא כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ? דְּאִי כְּרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הָאָמַר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין!
If we say that he changed the pinching of the bird’s nape by leaving the head partially attached, as is proper for a sin offering, then from the fact that the latter clause, i.e., the first clause of the next mishna (66b), teaches: All of the offerings enumerated above do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when it is in the throat, and one who benefits from them is liable for misuse of consecrated property, by inference, we must say that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua. As, if it is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua, doesn’t he say later on in that mishna concerning a burnt offering whose nape was pinched according to the procedure of a sin offering: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property?
וְאֶלָּא בְּמִיצּוּי?
Rather, the mishna must be referring to a change in the procedure of squeezing out the blood. Instead of squeezing out the blood, the priest sprinkled it on the wall of the altar as if it were a sin offering. In this case, even Rabbi Yehoshua would concede that one is liable for misusing it.
אֵימָא סֵיפָא: עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִין בָּהּ. דְּשַׁנִּי בְּמַאי?
But say the last clause of the subsequent mishna: In the case of a bird burnt offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of a sin offering, and for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who benefits from it is liable for misuse of consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who benefits from it is not liable for misuse of consecrated property, as the bird assumes the status of a sin offering. Here, with regard to what rite did the priest change the procedure and perform it as if it were a sin offering?
אִילֵּימָא בְּמִיצּוּי, אֵימַר דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ – דְּשַׁנִּי בִּמְלִיקָה; בְּמִיצּוּי מִי אָמַר?!
If we say that he changed the squeezing, this poses a difficulty, as it is reasonable to say that Rabbi Yehoshua says that one is not liable for misuse specifically when the priest changed the pinching, as pinching a burnt offering for a bird as though it were a sin offering changes its status; but does he say this in a case where it was pinched properly, and the priest changed the squeezing procedure alone? It is unreasonable to suggest that the offering changes its status at this later stage.
וְאֶלָּא בִּמְלִיקָה? רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי?!
Rather, this final clause must be referring to a change with regard to the pinching. But can it be that the first clause concerning a sin offering sacrificed as a burnt offering and the last clause concerning the dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua are both referring to a change with regard to the pinching, but the middle clause concerning a burnt offering sacrificed as a sin offering is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing?
אִין; רֵישָׁא וְסֵיפָא בִּמְלִיקָה, וּמְצִיעֲתָא בְּמִיצּוּי.
The Gemara answers: Indeed, the first clause and the last clause are referring to a change with regard to the pinching, and the middle clause is referring to a change with regard to the squeezing.
מַתְנִי׳ וְכוּלָּן אֵין מְטַמְּאִין בְּבֵית הַבְּלִיעָה, וּמוֹעֲלִים בָּהֶן; חוּץ מֵחַטַּאת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת.
MISHNA: And all of the offerings enumerated in the previous mishna, even those that are disqualified and may not be eaten or sacrificed, still differ from carcasses of unslaughtered kosher birds in that they do not render one who swallows their meat ritually impure when the meat is in the throat. This is because the pinching of the napes of bird offerings, like the slaughter of animals, prevents them from assuming the status of a carcass. But nevertheless, since they are forbidden to the priests, one who derives benefit from any of them is liable for misusing consecrated property. This is the halakha in all cases except for the bird sin offering that one sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering and for the sake of a sin offering. Since it was sacrificed properly and it is permitted for priests to partake of a fit sin offering, there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property.
עוֹלַת הָעוֹף שֶׁעֲשָׂאָהּ לְמַטָּה כְּמַעֲשֵׂה חַטָּאת לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר: מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר: אֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ.
In the case of a bird burnt offering that one improperly sacrificed below the red line according to the procedure of the sin offering, and one did so for the sake of a sin offering, Rabbi Eliezer says: One who derives benefit from it is liable for misusing consecrated property, as it remains a burnt offering, whose meat is never permitted to the priests. Rabbi Yehoshua says: One who derives benefit from it is not liable for misusing consecrated property. Since the entire sacrificial process was conducted according to the procedure of a sin offering, the offering assumes the status of a sin offering in this regard.
אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר: וּמָה אִם חַטָּאת, שֶׁאֵין מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ; עוֹלָה, שֶׁמּוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ לִשְׁמָהּ – כְּשֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ אֵינוֹ דִּין שֶׁיִּמְעֲלוּ בָּהּ?!
The mishna recounts the dispute between the tanna’im. Rabbi Eliezer said: And if in the case of a sin offering that was sacrificed for its sake, one is not liable for misusing it, and nevertheless, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake, one is liable for misusing it, then in the case of a burnt offering, where one is liable for misusing it even when it was sacrificed for its sake, when one changed its designation and sacrificed it not for its sake is it not right that he is liable for misusing it?
אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ: לֹא; אִם אָמַרְתָּ בְּחַטָּאת שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם עוֹלָה – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁיֵּשׁ בּוֹ מְעִילָה; תֹּאמַר בְּעוֹלָה שֶׁשִּׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְשֵׁם חַטָּאת – שֶׁכֵּן שִׁינָּה אֶת שְׁמָהּ לְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ מְעִילָה?!
Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: No, that a fortiori inference is not correct, as if you said with regard to a sin offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a burnt offering that there is liability for misuse, this is reasonable, because he changed its designation to an item for which there is liability for misuse. Would you say in the case of a burnt offering for which one changed its designation and sacrificed it for the sake of a sin offering that there is liability for misuse, as in that case he changed its designation to an item for which there is no liability for its misuse?
